The EPA’s rules were endorsed by a panel of scientists required by law to review them — called the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). Both the Clean Air Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act required that CASAC panels be independent and unbiased.

So was the panel independent and/or unbiased?

Below are listed the panel members at the amount of money they received in EPA grants, according to documents obtained from the EPA:

Dr. H. Christopher Frey, North Carolina State University — $3,136,162

Mr. George A. Allen, North east States for Coordinated Air Use Management — $3,907,111

Regretfully, federal research grant funds and publishers of academic textbooks have been used to deceive the public since the end of WWII (1946-2016). For example, a seemingly “small error“ in Dr. Carl von Weizsacker’s definition of nuclear binding energy:

1. Deprived humanity of Aston’s 1922 promise of “powers beyond the dreams of scientific fiction” for more than ninety years, and

2. Delayed acceptance of Kuroda’s 1945 insight into the explosive, atomic-bomb-like “beginning of the world” for more than seventy years:

You are irrelevant, boring and repetitive in only the way that the unhinged can be. Do you think about anything else in your twilight years? Let us all know how your meeting goes — we all want to know how the world explosively began (thanks to your 1945 super-hero Kurodo).

The amount of money going to individual researchers is staggering. With tens of millions of dollars at stake, can anyone remain objective?

I wonder if those who were not on the EPA payroll played along with those who were? Or were they compensated in other ways not directly traceable to the EPA but still from the Obama Administration, and therefore just as conflicted as those who were directly compensated?

To be sure, some minimal compensation would be appropriate for reviewing EPA rules. But the amounts documented here are far from minimal. Were they direct compensation for playing along or were they compensation for other unrelated projects? Will we ever find out? Does it even matter? If these scientists were kept on the payroll, precisely because they supported EPA programs without asking hard questions, they are clearly not the “independent experts” required by law.

The only reasonable conclusion from this information is that we are dealing with corruption.

Just a simple example of ‘He who pays the piper calls the tune.’ ??
It seems incredibly naive to appoint ‘independent’ advisors who appear to be on the payroll of the authority.
Surely the EPA could have appointed CASAC members who were guaranteed to give the required answers without APPEARING to be biased .

Part of the problem is that the analysis data sets used by EPA funded researchers are not public. The EPA does not ask for the data sets as that would open up FOI. Researchers offer various reasons not to make the data public. The end result is very expensive public health claims are not subject to normal scientific oversight.

Many years ago con artists began using “science” to peddle their fake cures. The old “magic cure” peddler selling his “snake oil.” Now we have advanced to more elaborate fake cures and much more expensive and they are still using “science” to peddle their scams.